2020 election

[C-Mag]

Trump is a Return To Normalcy, yet another reason why Biden can't beat him. 2016 is just another election, Trump winning is not the harbinger of a new political era. Just because Trump has a unique personality doesn't mean shit isn't normal.

You are describing how history rhymes, which is part of cyclic history theory. But it doesn't explain how global cultures change dramatically in a short period. Like going from monarchies to Constitutional Democracies.

Don't need to explain how global cultures change dramatically in a short period of time, if that isn't what is happening. Trump getting elected in 2016 was not the sea change some perceive it to be, wishful thinking is a helluva drug.

You don't fucking know. That's like saying FDR wasn't going to do anything in 1934; or Carter would be transformational in 1978. You're applying your bias to your comments. None of us will know for 25 to 50 years. Cyclic history indicates we are due for a transformational figure. Could be Trump, could be someone that replaces him or could be Justin Trudeau for all I know.

[StCapps]

You are describing how history rhymes, which is part of cyclic history theory. But it doesn't explain how global cultures change dramatically in a short period. Like going from monarchies to Constitutional Democracies.

Don't need to explain how global cultures change dramatically in a short period of time, if that isn't what is happening. Trump getting elected in 2016 was not the sea change some perceive it to be, wishful thinking is a helluva drug.

You don't fucking know. That's like saying FDR wasn't going to do anything in 1934; or Carter would be transformational in 1978. You're applying your bias to your comments. None of us will know for 25 to 50 years. Cyclic history indicates we are due for a transformational figure. Could be Trump, could be someone that replaces him or could be Justin Trudeau for all I know.

Well if you don't fucking know, then why are the Pro-Transformational side so sure of themselves while ridiculing those who disagree with them? Riddle me that?

If no one knows until 25 to 50 years from now, why you jumping the gun and assuming the change is underway? It's due? Talk about cyclical history theory, yet you malign it in the next breath.

[DrYouth]

I listened to Tulsi Gabbard on JRE.

She's good.

I think she could take Trump.

[C-Mag]

Don't need to explain how global cultures change dramatically in a short period of time, if that isn't what is happening. Trump getting elected in 2016 was not the sea change some perceive it to be, wishful thinking is a helluva drug.

You don't fucking know. That's like saying FDR wasn't going to do anything in 1934; or Carter would be transformational in 1978. You're applying your bias to your comments. None of us will know for 25 to 50 years. Cyclic history indicates we are due for a transformational figure. Could be Trump, could be someone that replaces him or could be Justin Trudeau for all I know.

Well if you don't fucking know, then why are the Pro-Transformational side so sure of themselves while ridiculing those who disagree with them? Riddle me that?

If no one knows until 25 to 50 years from now, why you jumping the gun and assuming the change is underway? It's due? Talk about cyclical history theory, yet you malign it in the next breath.

Dude your just here to smell your own farts.

[DrYouth]

Anti-war Dems are nowhere near a big enough base to win, and that's all she's got.

Actually that's not all she's got...
But sadly you are right.

The Dems won't choose her... but actually she's got what it takes to beat Trump.

But they don't know that she does... so they are doomed to fail.

[C-Mag]

I listened to Tulsi Gabbard on JRE.

She's good.

I think she could take Trump.

She could be, could be Yang. There's only 3 real candidates that could be that transformational figure, Tulsi, Yang and Trump. Bernie is not transformational, he talks it, but doesn't back it.

[StCapps]

Anti-war Dems are nowhere near a big enough base to win, and that's all she's got.

Actually that's not all she's got...
But sadly you are right.

The Dems won't choose her... but actually she's got what it takes to beat Trump.

But they don't know that she does... so they are doomed to fail.

She does not have what it takes to beat Trump, not even close. Even if the Dems choose her, which won't happen, she'd get smashed.

All she has is the anti-war Dems, and MHF misfits, that's an even smaller base than Ron Paul had. Dead in the water, in both Dem Primaries, and against Donald Trump. She does not have the charisma to beat Trump, people would much rather have a beer with Trump than Gabbard, and Trump doesn't even drink.

People on this board need to stop thinking that just because a candidate appeals to them, that means they have a great chance of beating Trump.

That's not how it works, the American electorate does not think the way MHF misfits do, they don't vote for candidates for the same reasons you do, thus projection leads to bad analysis based on wishful thinking.

A prime example, assuming that folks posting here are Trump's real base, and that because they are mostly backing Gabbard or Yang, aren't terribly happy with Trump, that means Trump's base would turn on him in that hypothetical match up, therefore they could beat Trump. Bad analysis wishful thinking right thur.

[C-Mag]

Anti-war Dems are nowhere near a big enough base to win, and that's all she's got.

Actually that's not all she's got...
But sadly you are right.

The Dems won't choose her... but actually she's got what it takes to beat Trump.

But they don't know that she does... so they are doomed to fail.

She does not have what it takes to beat Trump, not even close. Even if the Dems choose her, which won't happen, she'd get smashed.

Yeah, she's not going to get past her own party, BHO is in control of the party, thus all the radicals and Biden as the front runner. Though I would really love the match up. Americans with the choice of Gabbard v. Trump. Alas, it's just a big a fantasy as Bernie v. Trump in '16.

[DrYouth]

]She does not have what it takes to beat Trump, not even close.

Trump won't win against Tulsi... because she's not a political robot.
He would have won against her if she had challenged him in 2016 because people didn't know that he was full of shit back then.
He appeared genuine and believable.
But in 2020 people know he's a compulsive liar.

So it won't work again... unless the Dems run a robot-politician against him. Which they very well might.
Tulsi is genuine and believable... and is likely not a compulsive liar.
She would have a good chance against him in 2020... because she has appeal on the right.

I doubt Biden does. Although I actually know very little about Biden.

[StCapps]

Actually that's not all she's got...
But sadly you are right.

The Dems won't choose her... but actually she's got what it takes to beat Trump.

But they don't know that she does... so they are doomed to fail.

She does not have what it takes to beat Trump, not even close. Even if the Dems choose her, which won't happen, she'd get smashed.

Yeah, she's not going to get past her own party, BHO is in control of the party, thus all the radicals and Biden as the front runner. Though I would really love the match up. Americans with the choice of Gabbard v. Trump. Alas, it's just a big a fantasy as Bernie v. Trump in '16.

It's an even bigger fantasy, because Bernie had a much better shot against Clinton in 2016, than Gabbard has in 2020.

If Americans were given the Gabbard v. Trump choice, Trump would win in a landslide.